We should provide radiotherapy patients with a hospital-issued ID so they do not have to suffer through security checks. It would not be much more difficult than issuing a driver's license.
Of course, if we do this, then a terrorist who needs to walk around with radioactive devices will definitely try to acquire or fake one of these IDs, to get around the security checks.
I think they should have a law that requires that lawyers get disbarred for threatening legal action where they know that there is no actionable issue at hand.
Isn't this fairly close to barratry, which can result in disbarment if carried on enough?
And if they are knowingly abusing the law can Target be sued for using SLAPP tactics (for instance) and can the lawyer be disciplined for making legally unjustified claims/threats?
An even better question is, if the material used in the messages is merely the prices (and not a reproduction of the flyer), can the lawyer sending the notice be charged with perjury? He makes a statement 'under penalty of perjury' that the material violates copyright. Given that facts such as prices aren't copyrightable, how can that be a true statement?
OK i thought of a way to stop spam. It is very simple. Charge people to send e-mail. Yep, let's say you charge.0001 per e-mail that is sent out. That would be 100 e-mails for a penny. Spamming would then be unprofitable, and people would gladly pay a few cents a month to stop spam.
Unfortunately, it would also pretty much kill legitimate mailing lists. Any mailing list with a large number of subscribers would likely become unaffordable.
There's also the problem of enforcing it. Spammers would likely get around it by taking advantage of open relays and open proxies, just like they do now. Only it would now result in the owners of the open relays or open proxies having to foot the.001/email bill, instead of the spammers.
Bruce Eckel [bruceeckel.com] has all of his "Thinking in" books available in pdf format on his webpage.
And I've seen Palm versions, too, which can be handy. When I needed to read his "Thinking in Java", I snarfed the Palm version and put it on my Palm VIIx, making it fairly easy to read during idle times.
One leaves the computer plugged in for the ground. Unplugged, you won't get electrocuted, but the box won't be grounded either. You have to pick one, or find another way of grounding the box (which realy isn't that hard)
For that matter, if you're concerned about static zapping computer components, it's typically sufficient to make sure you are at the same potential as the computer by using a wrist strap connected to the chassis.
He's probably looking at "total cost of ownership" numbers. These include support costs, training costs, etc. I've seen some TCO numbers recently that suggest otherwise (that GNU/Linux actually has a cheaper TCO than Windows), but that's part of the nature of this sort of "number".
Besides the licensing costs themselves, I wonder how many TCO numbers for Windows take into account the ongoing need to make sure all of your software is properly licensed. Failing to keep on top of licensing will result in BSA fines that will vastly increase the TCO, but the auditing and tracking itself isn't cheap.
Lord knows that nobody in Star Fleet has ever kept a backup.
I'm convinced that's because Star Trek is set in a universe where the successor to the DMCA makes it illegal to manufacture computers or software capable of making backups, as that might make copyright violations possible.
Voice-activation: You try going into battle, with a bridge full of people screaming and bulkheads failing, and try to get any computer algorithm to understand you! Talking is a lot easier than listening.
Exactly. You wonder what the suits will think when there's a serious pushing of voice-recognition in the office, and they realize that implementing it will probably require a return to real offices instead of cubicles, just due to the noise pollution that comes from everyone talking to their computers at once (not to mention the risk of someone running past your cubicle and shouting "File Run format c:/y").
I don't know how many times I've explained this, and people don't get it. This has bugged me since ST:TNG. "Where no one has gone before..." and the first thing they show are people at Enterprise's
destination. It was and still is a lame attempt at political correctness.
Yup. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one this bugs. And at the risk of repeating myself, I'll note that by Kirk's time, this could have been concisely and accurately expressed as "where no Federation Entity has gone before".
Indeed it is, but I was referring, of course, to "where no man has gone before," which, as we know, Kirk corrected for the record mid-sentence at the of Star Trek VI.
Technically, it's still incorrect, unless you're referring only to visiting uninhabited planets (if the planet is inhabited, obviously some one has gone there before). If you want to make it correct instead of merely PC, it should be "where no Federation entity has gone before".
Guilt by association, if he was so upstanding he would avoid felons.
Thank you for providing such a vivid demonstration of the fallacy of guilt by association. The association you're referring to (co-authorship of Learning Perl) occurred before Randal was charged. And as far as I know, there's no love lost between Tom and Randal, which makes your substitution of Tom for Randal doubly off.
you are probably one of those people who thinks they are so great because they have a four-digit Slashdot user number.
Strike two. I couldn't care less about the number of digits in a Slashdot user number. Please have your mind-reading apparatus recalibrated, it's obviously way off.
I believe you're thinking of Randal Schwartz, not Tom Christiansen. And given that Tom hasn't yet blasted you, I'll have to assume that Tom hasn't read this.
Problem is that while your manager probably understands that each task, focused on singularly, will be completed sooner (in total hours spent), s/he cannot help but want to appear to be making great strides on two or more tasks simultaneously -- even if the total time expended increases.
In other words, many a manager is afflicted with a typical political/bureaucratic disease, which I usually label "Prioritizing PR over actual effectiveness". Appearances become more important than actually getting things done. Unfortunately, those afflicted with this may well get to the point where they don't understand why reality doesn't live up to the PR they've been pushing so hard.
Maybe they never read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
Being it doesn't have any pictures, I doubt that any CNN reporter or producer would be interested.
It may be more that the environment they're used to working in (news reporting) is so geared to interrupt/multitasking that they don't really think much about doing things any other way.
Re whether or not they'd read something like that: My guess is that while a few might read something like that on their own time (if they have any), on the job, it's not likely to get anything better than a quick scan, given the typical emphasis on speed of reporting (vs. depth of reporting)
Hrm... I know I listen to mp3s a lot when I'm at home on my computer, but oddly enough, it seems to help my productivity. Maybe because I need some sort of 'background noise'. Or maybe I just work faster/better when listening to music.
Well, faster definitely.... better... I know I spend a lot of time debugging stuff that I shouldn't have had to, but that might be more based on the fact that I tend to code stuff/work on web pages on little sleep.
DeMarco and Lister touch on this a bit in Peopleware. There was a relevant study done at Cornell University. A group of people were queried as to their work preferences - with music or without. They were then divided up into two groups such that each group had half "prefer music" and half "prefer none". They were then given a programming assignment to get done in a set amount of time. One group worked with music, one without. Completion percentages were about equal in each group
There was a twist in the project, though. The assignment involved inputting numbers, putting them through a series of involved mathematical manipulations, and outputting the result. The manipulations actually resulted in the output number being the same as the input number. The overwhelming number of people who realized this came from the "without music" group.
The "left brain/right brain" theorists will tell you that the in the "with music" group, the creative side of the brain was tied up listening to the music and wasn't available to make the jump of realizing the math reduced to an identity function. I don't know if that's the real explanation, but it looks like something on that order is going on.
What they are trying to do is preventing folks from distributing their code with open source projects. They are also starting to cover themselves to make sure that if someone uses code that Microsoft wrote with, e.g. GPL'd code, the Microsoft code doesn't end up being covered by the GPL.
IANAL, but as far as I can see, it's entirely unnecessary for that purpose. If I don't have the right to distribute Microsoft's source, I can't force it under the GPL merely by distributing it with GPL'd code. I don't have the right.
As far as the GPL is concerned, I can't, by merely including or linking a third party's proprietary code with GPL'd code, force the third party to expose their source code to the world. The result of the GPL is that I can't legally distribute such a combination (though I can use such a combination in-house, as the GPL's restrictions don't kick in until I try to distribute), not that the third party has to distribute their source.
Hence, it appears that this part of the EULA is useless for protecting Microsoft's rights. The GPL, oddly enough, already protects them. The only apparent real use of this to Microsoft is to spew FUD and to deceive people as to the real nature of the GPL.
Pop-up ads annoy the hell out of a lot of online users, but they're impossible to ignore
That's not my experience. Even on an ADSL line, whenever a link brings up a popup, I typically end up hitting the close button on the popup before it's had time to display much of anything. Popups are annoying as flys, and likely to chase me away from sites that use them, but they're easier to swat.
ObSpeelingRant: For heavens sake, it's spelled "free speech", not "free speach".
This is actually a bit of anti-spammer humor. The spelling 'free speach' is actually not uncommon among spammers, so anti-spammers tend to use it in mockery of the spammers.
For fairly quiet power supplies, take a look at PC Power & Cooling. Their power supplies cost a bit more, but they're quieter and longer-lasting than the typical cheapie power supply. They've been around since 1985. If you want power supplies or fans that are likely to last, this is the place to get them.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that his emotion chip runs on a different OS?
Of course, if we do this, then a terrorist who needs to walk around with radioactive devices will definitely try to acquire or fake one of these IDs, to get around the security checks.
I would have more confidence in MirCorp if their tagline didn't abbreviate to 'The MCSE Company'.
Isn't this fairly close to barratry, which can result in disbarment if carried on enough?
An even better question is, if the material used in the messages is merely the prices (and not a reproduction of the flyer), can the lawyer sending the notice be charged with perjury? He makes a statement 'under penalty of perjury' that the material violates copyright. Given that facts such as prices aren't copyrightable, how can that be a true statement?
Unfortunately, it would also pretty much kill legitimate mailing lists. Any mailing list with a large number of subscribers would likely become unaffordable.
There's also the problem of enforcing it. Spammers would likely get around it by taking advantage of open relays and open proxies, just like they do now. Only it would now result in the owners of the open relays or open proxies having to foot the .001/email bill, instead of the spammers.
And I've seen Palm versions, too, which can be handy. When I needed to read his "Thinking in Java", I snarfed the Palm version and put it on my Palm VIIx, making it fairly easy to read during idle times.
For that matter, if you're concerned about static zapping computer components, it's typically sufficient to make sure you are at the same potential as the computer by using a wrist strap connected to the chassis.
You wouldn't know it by the DOJ's current kid-glove-treatment of Microsoft.
Besides the licensing costs themselves, I wonder how many TCO numbers for Windows take into account the ongoing need to make sure all of your software is properly licensed. Failing to keep on top of licensing will result in BSA fines that will vastly increase the TCO, but the auditing and tracking itself isn't cheap.
I'm convinced that's because Star Trek is set in a universe where the successor to the DMCA makes it illegal to manufacture computers or software capable of making backups, as that might make copyright violations possible.
Exactly. You wonder what the suits will think when there's a serious pushing of voice-recognition in the office, and they realize that implementing it will probably require a return to real offices instead of cubicles, just due to the noise pollution that comes from everyone talking to their computers at once (not to mention the risk of someone running past your cubicle and shouting "File Run format c: /y").
Yup. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one this bugs. And at the risk of repeating myself, I'll note that by Kirk's time, this could have been concisely and accurately expressed as "where no Federation Entity has gone before".
Technically, it's still incorrect, unless you're referring only to visiting uninhabited planets (if the planet is inhabited, obviously some one has gone there before). If you want to make it correct instead of merely PC, it should be "where no Federation entity has gone before".
Thank you for providing such a vivid demonstration of the fallacy of guilt by association. The association you're referring to (co-authorship of Learning Perl) occurred before Randal was charged. And as far as I know, there's no love lost between Tom and Randal, which makes your substitution of Tom for Randal doubly off.
Strike two. I couldn't care less about the number of digits in a Slashdot user number. Please have your mind-reading apparatus recalibrated, it's obviously way off.
I believe you're thinking of Randal Schwartz, not Tom Christiansen. And given that Tom hasn't yet blasted you, I'll have to assume that Tom hasn't read this.
In other words, many a manager is afflicted with a typical political/bureaucratic disease, which I usually label "Prioritizing PR over actual effectiveness". Appearances become more important than actually getting things done. Unfortunately, those afflicted with this may well get to the point where they don't understand why reality doesn't live up to the PR they've been pushing so hard.
It may be more that the environment they're used to working in (news reporting) is so geared to interrupt/multitasking that they don't really think much about doing things any other way.
Re whether or not they'd read something like that: My guess is that while a few might read something like that on their own time (if they have any), on the job, it's not likely to get anything better than a quick scan, given the typical emphasis on speed of reporting (vs. depth of reporting)
DeMarco and Lister touch on this a bit in Peopleware. There was a relevant study done at Cornell University. A group of people were queried as to their work preferences - with music or without. They were then divided up into two groups such that each group had half "prefer music" and half "prefer none". They were then given a programming assignment to get done in a set amount of time. One group worked with music, one without. Completion percentages were about equal in each group
There was a twist in the project, though. The assignment involved inputting numbers, putting them through a series of involved mathematical manipulations, and outputting the result. The manipulations actually resulted in the output number being the same as the input number. The overwhelming number of people who realized this came from the "without music" group.
The "left brain/right brain" theorists will tell you that the in the "with music" group, the creative side of the brain was tied up listening to the music and wasn't available to make the jump of realizing the math reduced to an identity function. I don't know if that's the real explanation, but it looks like something on that order is going on.
To everyone except the PHBs, yes
IANAL, but as far as I can see, it's entirely unnecessary for that purpose. If I don't have the right to distribute Microsoft's source, I can't force it under the GPL merely by distributing it with GPL'd code. I don't have the right.
As far as the GPL is concerned, I can't, by merely including or linking a third party's proprietary code with GPL'd code, force the third party to expose their source code to the world. The result of the GPL is that I can't legally distribute such a combination (though I can use such a combination in-house, as the GPL's restrictions don't kick in until I try to distribute), not that the third party has to distribute their source.
Hence, it appears that this part of the EULA is useless for protecting Microsoft's rights. The GPL, oddly enough, already protects them. The only apparent real use of this to Microsoft is to spew FUD and to deceive people as to the real nature of the GPL.
That's not my experience. Even on an ADSL line, whenever a link brings up a popup, I typically end up hitting the close button on the popup before it's had time to display much of anything. Popups are annoying as flys, and likely to chase me away from sites that use them, but they're easier to swat.
This is actually a bit of anti-spammer humor. The spelling 'free speach' is actually not uncommon among spammers, so anti-spammers tend to use it in mockery of the spammers.
When was the last time you could describe the process of pressing a lawsuit and collecting the proceeds as fast?
For fairly quiet power supplies, take a look at PC Power & Cooling. Their power supplies cost a bit more, but they're quieter and longer-lasting than the typical cheapie power supply. They've been around since 1985. If you want power supplies or fans that are likely to last, this is the place to get them.